alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
bm20091222_8kex102.htm


    Private
& Confidential

     

    The
Directors

    Bell
Microproducts Limited

    Company
Number: 03969946

    Cox
Lane

    Chessington

    Surrey  KT9
1SJ                                                                                                Date: December  2009

     

    Dear
Sirs

     

    Syndicated
credit agreement dated 2 December 2002 between (1) Ideal Hardware Limited (now
called Bell Microproducts Limited) and Bell Microproducts Europe Export Limited
(as Original Borrowers), (2) B.M. Europe Partners C.V., (3) Bell Microproducts
BV, (4) Bank of America, National Association (as Arranger, Issuer, Swingline
Lender, Agent and Security Trustee) and (5) certain banks and financial
institutions (as Original Lenders) (as amended and/or restated from time to
time) (the "Credit Agreement").

     

    We refer
to (a) the Supplemental Agreement to be entered into on or about the date of
this letter (the “Supplemental
Agreement”) and (b) the Credit Agreement.

     

    Unless
otherwise defined or the context otherwise requires, words and expressions
defined in the Credit Agreement shall bear the same meanings when used in this
letter.

     

    This
letter is the Fee Letter (2009).  Unless otherwise expressly provided
in this letter, this letter is supplemental to and does not replace any previous
Fee Letter. In addition, for the avoidance of doubt, any fees payable in
accordance with the terms of the Credit Agreement or any other Finance Document
shall continue to be payable in accordance with the terms of such Finance
Document, unless this letter otherwise provides.

     

    In
consideration of the term of the amendments to be effected by the Supplemental
Agreement, you agree with the Arranger as follows:

     


    
      
        
          (22899080.02)

        

         


      

      
         


        
          

        

      

      
         


      

    


    Amendment
Arrangement Fee

     

    BMUK
shall pay (or procure that there in paid) to the Arranger for its own account an
amendment arrangement fee of £35,000.  Such fee shall be earned and
payable in full on the Effective Date. No part of the renewal fee shall be
refundable in any circumstances.

     

    This
letter shall constitute a Finance Document.

     

    This
letter shall be governed by English law.

     

    If the
foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, please execute and return
the enclosed copy of this letter to us.

     

    Yours
faithfully

     

    


    /s/ Lee Masters

    ............................

     

    for and
on behalf of

     

    Bank
of America, National Association

     

    (in
its capacity as Arranger)

     

    


     

    We accept
and agree to the above.

     

    Yours
faithfully

     

    


    /s/ Nicholas Lee

    ............................

     

    Director

     

    


     

    for and
on behalf of

     

    Bell
Microproducts Limited
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                            154,535
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   3,385,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                      115,000
<INVENTORY>                                     2,634,997
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                6,115,098
<PP&E>                                          2,351,724
<DEPRECIATION>                                  1,774,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  8,313,292
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,451,311
<BONDS>                                            35,359
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                          125,492
<OTHER-SE>                                      4,367,043
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    8,313,292
<SALES>                                        14,769,130
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,769,130
<CGS>                                           8,450,923
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   5,473,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                160,383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   684,380
<INCOME-TAX>                                       27,559
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               656,821
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      656,821
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .05



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Paul FLUHARTY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-5298.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 1, 2011.

*213J. Rafael Rodriguez, Law Offices of J. Rafael Rodriguez, Miami, Florida, for Appellant. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Paul Fluharty pled guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (2006), and he was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues for appeal but questions whether the magistrate judge complied with the requirements of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 and whether the sentence is reasonable.* Fluharty was notified of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief, but he has not done so. The Government moves to dismiss the appeal, asserting Fluharty waived his right to appeal the sentence in the plea agreement.

Upon review of the plea agreement and the transcript of the Rule 11 hearing, we conclude that Fluharty knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence. Further, because counsel did not raise any sentencing issues outside the scope of the waiver, and we discern none, the terms of the agreement will be enforced. Accordingly, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss as to Fluharty’s sentence. However, because the appeal waiver pertains only to Fluharty’s sentence, we have reviewed the Rule 11 hearing and conclude that the magistrate judge committed no reversible error. We have reviewed Fluharty’s conviction pursuant to our obligation under *Anders.*As we have found no meritorious issues for appeal, we affirm Fluharty’s conviction.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the deci-sional process.

*DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.*

*

 The Rule 11 hearing was conducted by a magistrate judge with Fluharty’s written consent. *See*28 U.S.C.A. § 636 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011).
# C_2020175EN.01002302.xml

| 25.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 March 2020 — Muratbey Gida v EUIPO (Shape of a twisted cheese)

(Case T-571/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for a three-dimensional EU trade mark - Shape of a twisted cheese - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 175/30)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: M. Schork, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 June 2019 (Case R 107/2019-4) relating to an application for registration of a three-dimensional sign consisting of the shape of a twisted cheese as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Muratbey Gida Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 328, 30.9.2019.

---
##### 



Exhibit 14.16 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS To the Board of Directors of
Companhia Vale do Rio Doce (CVRD) We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in (i) the
Registration Statement on Form F-4 (File Nos. 333-109610; 333-109610-01) of
CVRD and Vale Overseas Limited (Vale Overseas); and (ii) the Registration
Statement on Form F-3 (File Nos. 333-110867; 333-10867-01) of CVRD and Vale
Overseas of our report dated January 26, 2004 on the consolidated financial
statements of RIO DOCE MANGANÊS S.A. and Subsidiaries which appears in the
Annual Report on Form 20-F of CVRD and Vale Overseas for the year ended
December 31, 2003. June 4, 2004 /s/ Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 64 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 64

  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in 
      state of the remains of the late Honorable Daniel K. Inouye.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            December 18 (legislative day, December 17), 2012

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
       concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for the lying in 
      state of the remains of the late Honorable Daniel K. Inouye.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That in recognition of the long and distinguished service rendered to 
the Nation by Daniel K. Inouye, a Senator from the State of Hawaii and 
formerly a Representative from that State, his remains be permitted to 
lie in state in the rotunda of the Capitol on December 20, 2012, and 
the Architect of the Capitol, under the direction of the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate, 
shall take all necessary steps for the accomplishment of that purpose.
                                 <all>
```
exv10w2






EXHIBIT 10.2




AMENDMENT TO

SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS AGREEMENT 




     THIS AMENDMENT dated as of the 11th day of December, 2009, by and between EnPro
Industries, Inc., a North Carolina corporation (the “Company”), and Richard L. Magee (the
“Executive”);



WITNESSETH:




     WHEREAS, Executive entered into a Supplemental Retirement and Death Benefits Agreement with
the Company dated November 8, 2005 (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which Executive was scheduled to
receive payments of certain supplemental retirement benefits commencing in 2007 and continuing
annually thereafter until retirement; and



     WHEREAS, Executive and the Company desire to amend the Agreement as set forth herein to
eliminate any payments prior to retirement and associated tax gross-up payments for periods
beginning after January 1, 2010;



     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants contained herein, the
parties agree that the Agreement is amended as follows effective as of the date hereof:




1.
The following sentence is added to the end of Section 1(a) of the
Agreement:


“Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, (i) a Retirement Benefit
Payment shall be determined as of January 1, 2010 and paid as set forth above, (ii)
Retirement Benefit Payments shall not be determined and paid as of any subsequent
January 1 and (iii) a final Retirement Benefit Payment shall be determined as of the
date of Executive’s termination of employment with the Company and paid as set forth
above.”




2.
The following sentence is added to the end of Section 1(c) of the
Agreement:


“Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, (i) a Gross-Up Payment shall
be determined and paid with respect to the Retirement Benefit Payment determined as
of January 1, 2010 as set forth above, and (ii) no Gross-Up Payment shall be made
for any subsequent Retirement Benefit Payment.”



     3. The reference to “related Gross-Up Payment” in section 1(e) of the Agreement is deleted.



     4. Except as expressly or by necessary implication amended hereby, the Agreement shall
continue in full force and effect.



 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed by an officer
thereunder duly authorized so to do, and Executive has accepted and executed this Amendment, all as
of the day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	ENPRO INDUSTRIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Robert P. McKinney
 	 
	 	 	Robert P. McKinney 	 
	 	 	Vice President, Human Resources 	 
	 
	 	“Company”

 	 
	 	/s/ Richard L. Magee
 	 
	 	Richard L. Magee 	 
	 	

“Executive”

 	 
	 	 	 




2
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3698 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3698

  To amend title 40, United States Code, to improve veterans service 
       organizations access to Federal surplus personal property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 19, 2012

   Ms. Collins (for herself, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Brown of 
  Massachusetts) introduced the following bill; which was read twice, 
              considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 40, United States Code, to improve veterans service 
       organizations access to Federal surplus personal property.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Formerly Owned Resources for 
Veterans to Express Thanks for Service Act of 2012'' or the ``FOR VETS 
Act of 2012''.

SEC. 2. VETERANS ACCESS TO FEDERAL EXCESS AND SURPLUS PERSONAL 
              PROPERTY.

    Section 549(c)(3) of title 40, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or'' at the end;
            (2) in subparagraph (B)--
                    (A) in clause (viii), by adding ``or'' at the end; 
                and
                    (B) by striking clause (x); and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(C) for purposes of providing services to 
                veterans (as defined in section 101 of title 38), to an 
                organization whose--
                            ``(i) membership comprises substantially 
                        veterans; and
                            ``(ii) representatives are recognized by 
                        the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under section 
                        5902 of title 38.''.
                                 <all>
```
SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION:

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                              ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Certification of CEO

In  connection  with  the Quarterly Report of Sentry Technology Corporation (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-Q  for the period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report"), I, Peter L.
Murdoch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 18
U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002,  that,  to  my  knowledge:

(1)     The  Report  fully  complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
        15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

(2)     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
        respects,  the  financial  condition  and  results of operations of the
        Company.



                             /s/ PETER L. MURDOCH
                          -------------------------------------------------
                               Peter L. Murdoch
                               President and Chief Executive Officer

                               August 11, 2008


A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form  within  the  electronic  version  of  this     written
statement  required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be
retained  by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or  its  staff  upon  request.

This  certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by  such  Act,  be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934,  as  amended  (the  "Exchange  Act").  Such
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the
extent  that  the  Company  specifically  incorporates  it  by  reference.
Exhibit 32



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Tornado Gold International Corp. a
Nevada corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December
31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), Earl W. Abbott, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Tornado Gold International Corp., and will be retained by Tornado
Gold International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.



/s/ Earl W. Abbott
--------------------------
Earl W. Abbott
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
April 15, 2005
# C_2021053EN.01003801.xml

| 15.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 53/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 53/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 December 2020 — Alkemie Group v EUIPO — Mann & Schröder (ALKEMIE)

(Case T-860/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark ALKEMIE - Earlier EU word mark Alkmene - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2021/C 53/50)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Alkemie Group sp. z o.o. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: A. Korbela, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Mann & Schröder GmbH (Siegelsbach, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2231/2018-2) regarding opposition proceedings between Mann & Schröder and Alkemie Group.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2231/2018-2) to the extent that it dismissed Alkemie Group sp. z o.o’s action in respect of ‘dietary aids’ in Class 5; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 16 September 2019 (Case R 2231/2018-2) to the extent that it dismissed Alkemie Group sp. z o.o’s action in respect of ‘dietary aids’ in Class 5;

| 2. | Dismisses the action for the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action for the remainder;

| 3. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 54, 17.2.2020.

---
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 8 

Providing for the appointment of Stephen M. Case as a citizen regent of 

the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2011 

Mr. LEAHY (for himself, Mr. COCHRAN, and Mr. REED) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for the appointment of Stephen M. Case as a 

citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on the Board of Regents 

5 of the Smithsonian Institution, in the class other than 

6 Members of Congress, occurring by reason of the resigna7 tion of Phillip Frost of Florida is filled by the appointment 

8 of Stephen M. Case of Virginia. The appointment is for 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 8 IS 

1 a term of 6 years, effective on the date of enactment of 

2 this joint resolution. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSKD5P82C1PROD with BILLS